[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 194 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7765-S7769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        BUILD BACK BETTER AGENDA

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, Democrats are closer than we have ever 
been to finalizing and passing legislation to achieve President Biden's 
Build Back Better agenda. We have made great progress since the 
President announced his framework last week, including by coming to an 
agreement that will, for the first time ever, empower Medicare to 
directly negotiate prices in Part B and Part D and lower prices for 
millions of seniors and American families.

  We will also cap out-of-pocket expenses at $2,000 a year, and our 
agreement will make it so Americans with diabetes don't pay more than 
$35 per month on insulin. One of the great confounding mysteries over 
the last several years is, how did insulin--a drug that has been on the 
market for years and years and years; there is no patent--end up 
costing $600 a dose for people who can barely afford it? Diabetes 
affects so many people, and yet they have to pay all of this money.
  So, as the House prepares to move forward, the Senate continues to 
achieve progress in our goal of passing Build Back Better before 
Thanksgiving. That is our goal. We are moving forward because the 
challenges American families and workers are facing are enormous, and 
President Biden's agenda has many things that will lower costs and help 
families pay the bills--lower costs and help families pay the bills.
  Take childcare, for instance. Families sometimes pay more than 
$10,000 a year for a child just to take care of him--a truly 
backbreaking expense. Secretary Yellen warned that the slack

[[Page S7766]]

in the labor force is connected to childcare. Well, the President's 
framework provides the largest investments ever to help families afford 
childcare services.
  I believe, of the 37 OECD nations, developed and semideveloped 
countries, we are the 36th in childcare. Once Build Back Better passes, 
that awful statistic will be gone.
  Take pre-K. The President's framework will, for the first time ever, 
provide universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds. Millions of kids will 
be able to get on the right track early in life because of this 
investment--long overdue.
  We will also extend the child tax credit. This will help millions of 
parents better afford things like groceries and diapers and utilities 
and other daily essentials.
  Of course, there are bold steps we are taking to fight climate 
change. Our country has had too many homes destroyed by hurricanes and 
flooding. Entire cities in the West are breathing toxic air caused by 
extreme wildfires. Heat waves and droughts endanger millions of 
Americans who make their living working outdoors or who don't have air-
conditioning.
  These disasters cost us tens of billions each year, so Build Back 
Better's investments will help us reach our climate goals and represent 
bold steps in the right direction. All the while, the President's plan 
will be fully paid for and help our country reduce inflationary 
pressures, as no less than 17 Nobel Prize-winning economists have 
affirmed.
  We are going to keep pushing to get these great policies over the 
finish line. As we have said repeatedly, nobody is getting everything 
they hoped for in the final deal, but Build Back Better will have 
things that everyone wanted.
  Passing transformative legislation isn't easy--it is hard, very 
hard--but the long hours we are putting in and the discussions we have 
had, some of them quite pointed, will be worth it when we produce a 
very good result for the American people. So we are going to keep 
working and keep working until we get this done.


                             Voting Rights

  Now, Madam President, on voting, yesterday was a sad day because, for 
the fourth time this year, the Senate had an opportunity yesterday to 
begin debating on the right to vote, but, yet again, virtually every 
Senate Republican denied the Senate a chance to act as the world's 
greatest deliberative body. They filibustered the mere opportunity to 
debate an issue that has had a long bipartisan history in the Senate.
  There was one bright note--one brave, courageous exception--and I 
want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, for 
voting in favor of beginning debate on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act. I thank my Democratic colleagues--there are so many--
particularly Senators Leahy and Durbin, for spending weeks working with 
her to find a compromise.
  Senate Democrats want to find a bipartisan way forward on the issue 
of voting rights. That is why we worked with Senator Murkowski. But, 
ultimately, it is up to Republicans to come to the table and join us. 
We have been trying to convince them for months--for months. This has 
not been a rush. We have offered four reasonable proposals in an 
attempt to merely begin debate--in June, in August, in October, and now 
here in November.
  At no point did we call on Republicans to support our policies only 
but just agree to deliberate, to say what you think, and maybe we could 
have come to an agreement on something so important, as the Senate has 
always done in the past on this issue--bipartisan.
  Off the floor, we held public hearings, numerous group discussions, 
and countless one-on-one meetings with the other side, including talks 
led by no fewer than seven Democrats--Manchin, Kaine, Tester, King, 
Durbin, Klobuchar, Leahy--and there were more, I am sure. At virtually 
every turn, we have met with resistance.
  What has happened to the party of Lincoln? What has happened to that 
noble, noble view that voting rights are important on both sides of the 
aisle?
  The Senate is capable of far more than what we have seen from our 
Republican colleagues on voting rights. Throughout our history, our 
predecessors used regular order to debate and compromise and to pass 
transformative legislation--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the 
Civil Rights Act, and, of course, the Voting Rights Act--but anyone who 
has served in this Chamber over recent years knows that the gears of 
the Senate have become stiff and slow to turn.
  Who thinks that the original Social Security Act would have passed in 
this partisan Chamber today--or any New Deal legislation? If we were 
trying to create Medicare from scratch in 2021, who thinks that it 
would have survived a filibuster? The same Chamber responsible for 
those great, noble accomplishments in the past must be restored so it 
can take action in the modern era.
  As I said a few weeks ago, I believe the Senate needs to be restored 
to its rightful status as the world's greatest deliberative body. 
Debate is central to this Chamber's character, but so is governing and 
so is taking action when required after debate has run its due course. 
The fight is far from over. Democrats will explore alternative paths to 
restore the Senate so it does what its Framers intended--debate, 
deliberate, compromise, and vote.
  Just because Republicans will not join us to defend our democracy 
doesn't mean Democrats will stop fighting. It is too important. Even if 
it means going at it alone, we will continue to fight for voting rights 
and find an alternative path forward to get the Senate working again to 
protect our fundamental liberties as citizens.


                              Nominations

  Now, Madam President, on nominations, today, the Senate is going to 
confirm Mr. Robert Santos to serve as the Director of the Census 
Bureau.
  A native of San Antonio, who grew up in a Mexican-American family, 
Mr. Santos, in his 40-year career, has become one of the top 
statisticians in the country. If confirmed, Santos would be the first 
Hispanic and, in fact, the first person of color to become a permanent 
Director of the Census Bureau. He is exactly the kind of person our 
country needs overseeing our census--impartial, highly experienced, 
someone from outside politics. We must and need to protect our census 
from the pressures of partisan politics, and Santos is the perfect fit.
  President Trump--true to form--spent years trying to politicize and 
weaponize our country's census, going as far as maliciously trying to 
include citizenship questions and have counts of undocumented 
immigrants. Mr. Santos will restore trust and integrity to one of the 
most important Agencies in government.
  On Mr. Syed--of course, there are too many other qualified and 
uncontroversial nominees who are still awaiting their confirmations 
because of shameful Republican delay. Mr. Dilawar Syed is a 
particularly egregious example. Syed has been nominated to serve as 
second in command at the SBA. He is the definition--the definition--of 
a qualified, uncontroversial nominee. His nomination has been praised 
by no less than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--hardly a liberal crowd--
and he would be the highest ranking Muslim in our government.
  But our Republican colleagues on the Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee have not just blocked his vote, they have 
even refused to give him a markup. Their justification keeps changing 
from one explanation to another, which is another way of saying there 
seems to be zero legitimate grounds for opposing him. Today, he has 
been scheduled to have a markup, but because of Republicans, it has 
been pushed back again on account of their ridiculous concerns.
  The political right seems to relish in trying to score political 
points by connecting far too many of President Biden's nominees--many 
of whom happen to be individuals of color--to hot button, partisan 
issues whether or not they have any relevance.
  It is shameful, unacceptable, and ridiculous for Republicans to keep 
stalling on Syed's nomination. He is eminently qualified to serve in 
the SBA. Why are Senate Republicans opposing Mr. Syed's nomination? Let 
me ask the question again. Why are Senate Republicans opposing Mr. 
Syed's nomination?
  I urge my colleagues to drop their resistance and allow this 
excellent, straightforward nominee to receive confirmation.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S7767]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                                 Crime

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week, voters delivered a clear 
message to the Democratic Party: You were not elected to radically 
change America. You were not elected to radically change America--
period.
  The message was clear on inflation and economics. The message was 
clear on keeping woke propaganda out of public schools. The message was 
clear when even the citizens of blue New York--blue New York--voted 
down leftwing changes that would weaken elections, similar to what has 
been proposed here multiple times, and the message was clear when 
citizens pushed back on anti-policing and on anti-law enforcement 
attitudes.
  Even in the most liberal cities in the most liberal States, Americans 
told Democrats to leave their extreme campaign to ``defund the police'' 
behind.
  Let's take Minneapolis, for example. Last summer, one local 
Congresswoman called the police department ``rotten to the root'' and 
insisted that ``no one is saying that the community is not going to be 
kept safe.''
  Well, what happened?
  Homicides are on a pace for the highest annual count in decades. So 
this week, Minnesota voters rejected a ballot measure that would have 
removed the police department--listen to this--from the city's charter.
  Or take New York City, where violent crimes, like robbery and auto 
theft, have seen 10- to 15-percent jumps just in the last year. This 
week, voters chose for their mayor a former police captain whose 
platform declared: ``If we are for safety, we need the NYPD.'' That is 
the new mayor of New York.
  Upstate, in Buffalo, a socialist challenger had won a primary against 
the incumbent mayor, promising in part to defund the police. But even 
though prominent New York Democrats endorsed the radical who won the 
primary, the incumbent won the race on a write-in--on a write-in.
  Our people have just lived through the biggest nationwide jump in 
homicides in more than a century. In my hometown of Louisville, murders 
in 2021 have already more than doubled the annual total from just 2 
years ago.
  So, look, Americans do not want less public safety. They actually 
want more. No wonder that, over the summer, one survey found that a 
majority of Americans, including majorities of Black and Hispanic 
respondents, called violent crime a ``major crisis,'' ahead of any 
other issue.
  But it remains to be seen whether Democrats here in Washington are 
getting the message. After all, just a few days ago, the Attorney 
General still seemed more focused on intimidating America's parents out 
of their First Amendment rights.
  For the sake of public safety across our country, let's hope that 
Tuesday's election results compel our friends across the aisle to come 
back--back into the mainstream.


                             Climate Change

  Madam President, on another matter, President Biden spent much of the 
past week participating in a U.N. summit on the so-called Paris climate 
accords.
  The event was billed as a serious meeting of world leaders committed 
to taking action on climate policy. More than 1,000 VIPs arrived in a 
parade of no fewer than 400 private jets--400 private jets; a mode of 
transportation that some climate activists say is up to 14 times more 
polluting than commercial aviation.
  Hypocrisy was on full display at that meeting.
  The topic of discussion was a bad deal that, after 6 years, has 
failed to hold any of the major signatories to their commitments on 
reducing emissions. But, of course, that hadn't stopped President Biden 
from rejoining it. The President went as far as apologizing--
apologizing--that the previous administration had let the U.S. reduce 
its emissions from outside the deal. He pledged that, now, the United 
States ``will do our part.''
  Now, exactly what that means is not clear. The United States exceeded 
in cutting its emissions more from outside the Paris deal than any 
other major country managed from inside the deal.
  So President Biden apologized for outperforming the deal, and his 
counterparts welcomed America's new commitment to reduce U.S. emissions 
50 percent by 2030, without a single specific on how to achieve it.
  Now, while America's emissions have fallen, the world's leading 
carbon emitter apparently has a free pass to keep on increasing its 
emissions until 2030.
  According to China's own representatives, their massive and thriving 
economy is still in a ``special development stage.'' ``Special 
development stage.''
  We are talking about a country that built more than three times as 
much new coal power capacity as the rest of the world combined in 2020.
  Meanwhile, one outside analysis indicates that getting America even 
close to net zero emissions by 2050 would mean cutting our own GDP by 
nearly 12 percent annually. That is trillions of dollars shipped out of 
this country every year. Competitors, like China, are licking their 
chops.
  And what would this self-flagellation get us 39 years from now?
  According to that same outside analysis, based on the U.N.'s own 
model, this economic hemorrhage would purchase us a reduction of three-
tenths--three-tenths--of 1 degree in global temperatures.
  Meanwhile, the same Washington Democrats who think that this 
nightmare sounds like a good deal are pushing a reckless taxing-and-
spending spree that would hammer American families and the affordable 
energy they need to power and to heat their homes and to drive their 
cars.
  After less than a year with Democrats in power, America has already 
more than doubled imports of Russian oil from December 2020 levels--
double the dependency on Russia in less than 12 months--America's 
energy future, as imagined by our colleagues on the left.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for up 
to 15 minutes and that Senator Carper be allowed to speak for up to 2 
minutes at the conclusion of my remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Government Spending

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, just in the last day or so, the ever-
evolving reckless tax-and-spending spree bill proposed by the 
Democrats--it continues to change because they can't seem to figure out 
how to put together something that might pass in the House and the 
Senate, and finding it increasingly difficult, I think, to try and 
contain the cost of all the things they want to do, which is why they 
continue to build in gimmicks and phony math to try to accommodate all 
the crazy spending in this bill, and then also the massive run-up in 
the taxes.
  This bill is the largest spending increase we have seen in history, 
largest tax increase in history, and we are finding out now it is also 
going to add significantly to the Federal debt because there is a 
recent study by Penn Wharton which suggests that the overall cost of 
the bill, when fully implemented, would be $3.9 trillion and that the 
revenues that are proposed to be raised to pay for it only generate 
about $1.5 trillion. So that leaves you with a $2.4 trillion delta 
that, obviously, would be added to the deficit and put on the debt.
  So not only does this spend enormous amounts of money, unprecedented 
amounts of money, it raises an unprecedented amount of revenue. But 
even at that level, the revenue is totally inadequate and insufficient 
to cover that spending; therefore, it will add massively to the Federal 
debt--that is according to an economic analysis done by Penn Wharton 
here just in the last couple days.
  But this is the most recent addition to that bill in the House of 
Representatives. They would raise the SALT cap--

[[Page S7768]]

the state and local tax deduction cap--from $10,000 to $72,500. And it 
would also extend that higher cap through 2031, beyond its scheduled 
expiration after 2025.
  So they are still trying to come up with a way--if you can believe 
this. The massive amount of spending, massive amount of taxing, is now 
added to that a tax cut--a huge tax cut for rich people.
  According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if you 
look at how this distributes proportionately across income ranges, 
those making less than $100,000 would receive 2.5 percent of that tax 
cut--a tax cut that would cost $300 billion just through 2025. So if it 
is fully implemented for the full 10-year window, you are talking about 
hundreds of billions of dollars more in tax cuts to rich people.

  So just think about that. From the side that always says that our 
side is looking out for rich people, trying to cut taxes for the rich, 
they are proposing and have included now in the House version of the 
reckless tax-and-spending spree bill a provision that would provide tax 
cuts to rich people. In fact, 80 percent of that tax cut--80 percent--
would go to people who are making more than $200,000 a year; 2.5 
percent would go to people making less than $100,000 a year.
  So much for looking out for the little guy in this bill.
  This is a huge part of the bill. In fact, this is the most expensive 
provision in the bill, and that is up against all the other spending 
that the Democrats want to do on new government programs and expanding 
government--the biggest expansion in government in decades.
  But included now in the bill not only is that massive expansion 
spending on lots of crazy new ideas and trillions of dollars in new 
taxes that will be imposed upon the economy, but now there is a 
provision in there that will cut taxes with 80 percent of that benefit 
going to people making more than $200,000 a year, and cutting taxes on 
a scale that makes this the largest, most expensive provision in the 
entire reckless tax-and-spending spree bill. That is what we are 
talking about with this particular provision.
  So I just want to point that out because this is an evolving bill. We 
are seeing new language every day, new ideas every day. And, again, 
some really horrible ideas have come out in the last few weeks, some of 
which have gone away simply because there aren't even any Democrats who 
will vote for them; but this one, obviously, that is going to benefit 
rich people across this country on a level unlike anything else in the 
bill, as is suggested by the overall cost of the provision and the way 
it distributes among income categories.
  Let me repeat: 80 percent of the benefit of this tax cut in the tax-
and-spending spree is going to go to people making more than $200,000 a 
year, and 2.5 percent of this tax cut will go to people making less 
than $100,000 a year.


                           Childcare Benefit

  Mr. President, I think a lot of times when people think about the 
government paying for healthcare, childcare, college, or the like, they 
tend just to assume that they are going to be able to continue on with 
or get their preferred healthcare or childcare and the only difference 
would be the fact that the government is now picking up the tab.
  If you listen to the Democrats talk about it, that is certainly what 
you would think. But the reality is a lot different, because with 
government money comes government control. Government money rarely 
comes without strings attached, and no more is that more obvious than 
with the childcare provisions of the so-called Build Back Better tax-
and-spending spree Democrats are contemplating.
  To hear Democrats talk about it, you might think that the childcare 
provisions amounted to nothing more than government cutting you a check 
to help with your daycare costs. The reality is a lot different.
  Mr. President, a 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that 53 
percent of working families who used center-based childcare used a 
faith-based childcare center--53 percent. Parents select faith-based 
childcare for a variety of reasons. Some choose it because they share 
the faith of the provider, but many choose it for other reasons, as the 
Bipartisan Policy Center study made clear.
  Some opt for the faith-based center because they like the quality of 
the facilities and the quality of the instruction; others because they 
feel that the faith-based facility will provide a safe setting, and 
though they just don't share the belief system of the providers, they 
do like the values that the belief system represents.
  Well, for many of those families, their days of choosing faith-based 
childcare may be numbered because Democrats' new childcare provisions 
are deliberately set up to put faith-based childcare providers at a 
disadvantage.
  For starters, the language of the legislation would likely exclude 
many faith-based childcare providers from participating in the program. 
That means that even if you as a parent prefer to choose your local 
faith-based childcare center, you may not be able to do so.
  On top of that, the bill provides funding to assist with renovation 
or remodeling at daycare facilities, but it specifically prevents these 
funds from going to childcare centers that share space with facilities 
for worship or religious instruction.
  That means that the childcare program at your local Catholic church 
or local Lutheran church or your local mosque will most likely not be 
allowed to take advantage of the government assistance for renovations, 
although the secular provider down the street will.
  These policies are likely to have profound consequences. Obviously, 
many parents are likely to find themselves prevented from choosing 
their preferred faith-based childcare provider.
  But beyond that, this legislation can start crowding faith-based 
childcare providers out of the childcare market entirely. Childcare 
providers unable to participate in the government childcare program may 
find themselves struggling to stay in business or being forced to raise 
their fees to the point that only the most well-off families can afford 
faith-based care.
  The result: a shrinking number of faith-based providers, which, I am 
afraid, is probably some Democrats' goal.
  It is hard to imagine why else they would restrict parents' ability 
to choose a faith-based provider for their children or exclude 
religious childcare providers from receiving government renovation 
assistance.
  The Democrats' legislation is representative of a growing tendency in 
the Democratic Party to treat religious people as second-class 
citizens--something that is completely out of step with the robust idea 
of religious freedom we traditionally have in this country.
  The First Amendment is not intended to keep religion out of the 
public square, as many Democrats seem to think, nor was it intended to 
favor secular belief systems over religious ones, no. Its purpose was 
to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or 
infringing on the rights of religious individuals to live out their 
faith.
  Today, however, it has become apparent that many Democrats think at 
least some forms of government discrimination against religious people 
are perfectly acceptable, and there is no question that their childcare 
program would place faith-based childcare providers at a disadvantage.
  Steering parents away from faith-based childcare is not the only 
choice Democrats are going to be making for parents under this new 
childcare benefit. Democrats' childcare program will not only make it 
more difficult for parents to choose faith-based care, it will make it 
more difficult for parents to choose any private childcare provider.

  Under the Democrats' legislation, only public--in other words, 
government-run--childcare providers will be guaranteed sufficient 
reimbursement to cover their operating costs. This is a deliberate 
choice that will make it much more difficult for private providers to 
stay in business, serving the Democrats' goal of pushing children into 
government-run childcare programs.
  That is not the end of the childcare decisions Democrats will be 
making. The Democrats' legislation also gives the Federal Government 
full control over approving childcare curricula and performance 
standards. Providers will be measured not by how well parents

[[Page S7769]]

are satisfied with the childcare they are providing, but by whatever 
Washington bureaucrats determine to be appropriate measures of 
performance.
  I am not sure why Washington bureaucrats are better suited than 
parents to identify quality childcare providers, but as the Democrat 
candidate for the Governor of Virginia recently made clear, Democrats 
do not seem to think that parents are best suited to make decisions for 
their children.
  Mr. President, I can go on. I can talk about the confusing government 
bureaucracy parents will have to navigate under the Democrats' new 
childcare program, or I can talk about the fact that this new childcare 
benefit could drive up childcare costs for middle-class families over 
the next 3 years by a staggering $13,000 a year, according to one 
estimate. Yeah, $13,000 a year.
  But, today, what I really want to emphasize is something Democrats 
conveniently omit from discussions of their new government programs, 
and that is, as I said, that with government money comes government 
control. Democrats are setting the stage for a government takeover of 
childcare, where you can choose your provider only as long as Democrats 
agree with your choice.


                                Abortion

  Mr. President, before I close, I want to mention one other aspect of 
the Democratic bill, and that is the bill's commitment to taxpayer 
funding of abortion.
  While the Democratic Party has long supported an abortion agenda, 
there has at least been bipartisan agreement when it comes to 
appropriations bills that we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to 
fund abortion.
  For decades--decades, going back to the 1980s--the Hyde amendment and 
other riders have helped prevent taxpayer dollars from paying for 
abortions. No longer, if Democrats have their way.
  In the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree, taxpayer funding of 
abortions is the order of the day. Restrictions on the use of taxpayer 
dollars for abortion funding are omitted, and in at least one case, 
Democrats actively require funding of abortion and would override State 
laws on insurance coverage of abortion.
  Let's be very clear. This bill is a slap in the face to every 
American who believes in the sanctity of human life and doesn't want 
his or her tax dollars going to pay for killing unborn human beings.
  You would think that if we can't agree that the human rights of 
unborn children should be protected, we could at least agree that 
taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for killing unborn children.
  Well, apparently, even that is too much to ask for Democrats, even 
though nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose having their tax dollars 
go to abortion. That's right, almost 60 percent of Americans do not 
want their tax dollars going to pay for abortions.
  But that doesn't seem to matter to the Democratic Party, which is 
squarely in the pocket of the radical abortion lobby. The Democrats' 
legislation contains a radical commitment to government funding of 
abortions against the wishes of the majority of the American people.
  It is just one more reason why the Build Back Better plan is a bad 
deal for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. CARPER. Thanks very much.
  Mr. President, I don't have enough time to respond to everything that 
my colleague from South Dakota has said. If I did, it would take a long 
while.
  I would say this: A couple of years ago, when we passed with only 
Republican votes in the House and Senate, signed by President Trump, a 
tax-cut bill that was supposed to pay for itself, it didn't. It 
increased our deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.
  I think most of us know, with respect to abortion, the law of the 
land for many years--over 30 years--has been Roe v. Wade; and, 
essentially, after a certain point, when you have viability in the 
womb, abortions cannot be performed except in very limited cases, 
including rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
  The legislation that we passed and considered in the House does not 
provide for changing those limitations, and that needs to be made 
clear.
  The other thing I would say, with respect to the reconciliation bill, 
the Build Back Better legislation that the House is considering today 
in the Rules Committee, it is paid for. It is actually paid for, and it 
is paid for largely by making sure that everybody is paying their fair 
share.
  Folks don't mind in my State--and other States don't mind--you know, 
seeing their taxes raised, but they want to make sure that everybody 
else is paying their fair share. As it turns out, there are a lot of 
wealthy people in this country and a lot of wealthy corporations who 
don't pay their fair share--in some cases nothing--and that is just 
wrong.
  And the legislation actually cuts taxes for most Americans.


                       Vote on Connor Nomination

  Mr. President, now to the issue at hand. We are about to vote today 
on the nomination of Michael Connor to serve as Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Civil Works.
  As we all know, this is a critical leadership position for the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers Civil Works program is 
the nation's primary provider of water resources infrastructure, and 
with the increasing impacts of climate change, having someone of Mr. 
Connor's caliber at the Corps is critical.
  He has the experience and character to be successful in this role. 
During the Obama administration, he served as Deputy Secretary of the 
Interior, and he proved himself to be a capable leader. He will bring 
that experience to the Corps.
  If confirmed, Mr. Connor will lead efforts that dramatically impact 
every corner of this country, from coastal to inland to small, 
disadvantaged, rural, and Tribal communities.
  It is critically important that we get Mr. Connor confirmed now, 
today. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
  I think my time has expired.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________